Prominence =/= significance in any way. Just because all you hear about Central America in the 30 second sound bite news clips is immigration and drugs doesn't mean that's the most significant or only significant policy the US has with those countries. For example, the US exports about twice as much to Mexico as to China and Mexico is the US's third largest trading partner. There's about equal amount of reform that could occur to our trade with Mexico as could occur with China. Of course we don't usually realize this because all we think is "immigration and drugs."
I think I must clarify. My point is that resolution A is much narrower than either of the other two resolutions and that prominent/interesting reforms under it seem harder to come by than with the other two resolutions. I illustrated this point by identifying two reforms that I see as likely to by overused and the focus of the year with resolutions A. You are treating all my arguments as good or bad, true or false, hot or cold, when in reality I am trying to illustrate that resolution A is comparatively
more narrow and less interesting than either B or C. I feel like B, especially, offers a variety of prominent, impactful, and interesting reforms that span multiple foreign policy topics. In summary the reason we bring up the fact that immigration and drugs will be the focus of a year with resolution A is to point out that it is narrower and less interesting than the other two options (not necessarily that immigration and drugs would literally be the only things we debate).
I think you give people a little too much credit here. While it is true that more people have strong preformed opinions about immigration this doesn't mean they've already done the research necessary to debate about it in an informed and knowledgable manner. This is true for a lot of NCFCA resolutions and isn't a negative really. Most NCFCAers had preformed opinions on Voter ID laws going into election law year and on the UN going into UN year. Did that make the resolutions any worse? Not at all.
Sure! We have allot of preformed opinions about almost every resolution and (by your logic) every resolution is educational (which I agree to by the way). My point is that a year of resolution B or C would be comparatively more interesting and more educational because (at least with B) there are more policies that we could/should learn more about than under A and
the policies span a variety of different foreign policy topics (cyber security, military presence, human rights, trade, intellectual property, climate change, etc). Once again we are comparing
resolutions so I am only trying to prove that A is comparatively less interesting, less broad, and less educational, not that it is totally void of interesting content, or that immigration and drugs would be the only cases run, or that we wouldn't learn anything.
While you could simply take the stance of interventionist / isolationist every round, I doubt any debaters would do this and be successful with it. You could technically do the same thing with China. Engagement with China good/bad generics.
Here is the difference. All the cases under resolution C will revolve around the fundamental topic of military presence making the underlying arguments in every round very similar. With China we would debate many different types of foreign policy (see what I listed in my last response under this comment) making the fundamental arguments in every round different. It will at the very least be more interesting and more variant than arguments under C.
I think this is mostly dependent on preference and what each individual thinks is interesting
I totally agree to that. I find resolution B more interesting because we would get to learn about allot of different types of foreign policy and we would get to explore allot of different issues (as I have already listed this would include military presence, cyber security, human rights, trade, intellectual property, climate change, and more). I think research is central to Team Policy and if I am going to do allot of research I would prefer that it is on a variety of topics because that keeps things interesting for me to research and argue. But yeah, this is of course largely going to be a matter of opinion.
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Arete TP Club